Anand has the details about r520,rv530,rv515

Rys, that was an excellent article......and the disclamer is something we can all agree is a good thing.

And, as far as the HS goes, it looks exactly like to one on my X850XT......well, it was on my 850, it's water cooled now!
 
Jawed said:
Eh? How do you work that out? It's the same dual-slot cooler as X850.

Jawed
Click to expand...
Edit:
Gah, nevermind, you're right. For some reason it looked to me like the open third slot was covered by metal from the faceplate of the card. Nevermind, that's 2-slot cooling.
 
Chalnoth said:
Wow, three replies while I was editing my post, nice :)
Click to expand...

Hey....nobody can get away with anything here.......;)

" To boldly go where every man has gone before"

Isn't that what Ivanova said to Sheridan?????
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kemosabe said:
Is my Chinese getting rusty or is HKEPC claiming that ATI is desperately trying to squeeze a 24-pipe X1800XT PE out of TSMC?
Click to expand...

The passage means basically:

The R520(X1800 XT) will not release together with Crossfire on October. That means Crossfire will be released on a later time. And ATI "wishing"/"hoping" to increase the production rate on 24-pipe version of R520. And the way to do this is raise the core's "K" value to increase yield(wtf :?: :?: :LOL: ). By this method, production cost is increased, but ATI still "wish"/"hope" to put a 24-pipe version of R520 to market. Probably will be called X1800 XT PE. The release date of Crossfire maybe together with 24-pipe X1800 XT PE.
 
I'm really glad to see that single-slot cooler on the XL tho. It had been rumored elsewhere to be dual. It moves the knob back a little in the other (more optimistic) direction on the yield/speed-binning issue for XT. Tho this also depends a bit on just how big a gap there is in XL clocks vs XT clocks, which is still in play by my read.

Tho I still think I won't be rushing out to buy an XL the first month or so in case the rev logic upstream is true.
 
You're very silly to think that since 512MB of RAM made no difference on an X800XL it will make no difference on a card far more capable of shader processing and with much faster RAM.
 
The Baron said:
You're very silly to think that since 512MB of RAM made no difference on an X800XL it will make no difference on a card far more capable of shader processing and with much faster RAM.
Click to expand...
For one, better shader processing won't make the card any more capable of making use of the additioanl memory. Faster memory also won't help make better use of more.

What will help make better use of more memory is insanely-high resolution with high levels of FSAA and games that use more textures.

2048x1536 with 6x FSAA should take up about 160MB, so for games that use lots of textures there might be an improvement there.
 
The Baron said:
You're very silly to think that since 512MB of RAM made no difference on an X800XL it will make no difference on a card far more capable of shader processing and with much faster RAM.
Click to expand...

If the game doesn't have >256MB of "stuff"(textures/whatnot) why would having 512MB help at all? Am I totally not seeing this or something?
 
My memory tells me that the high-res article done awhile back had concluded that ATI was not quite as optimized yet in X8xx line for super-high res as NV had with G70, and that ATI sources had confirmed this to be true. But I suspect that isn't what is being pointed at here.
 
geo said:
My memory tells me that the high-res article done awhile back had concluded that ATI was not quite as optimized yet in X8xx line for super-high res as NV had with G70, and that ATI sources had confirmed this to be true. But I suspect that isn't what is being pointed at here.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by super-high res? Above 16x12? Because otherwise my memory tends to think the opposite is true.
 
Chalnoth said:
For one, better shader processing won't make the card any more capable of making use of the additioanl memory. Faster memory also won't help make better use of more.

What will help make better use of more memory is insanely-high resolution with high levels of FSAA and games that use more textures.

2048x1536 with 6x FSAA should take up about 160MB, so for games that use lots of textures there might be an improvement there.
Click to expand...
Is the amount of memory never a bottleneck just as fillrate and memory bandwidth can be? The X800 XL reviews show pretty plainly that the usual bottleneck is one of the latter two, not the former, but it still seems to me that the amount of memory available to the card could end up being a bottleneck as the other two increase.
 
John Reynolds said:
What do you mean by super-high res? Above 16x12? Because otherwise my memory tends to think the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

The R420 was better optimized to handle higher resolutions than the NV40, but the G70 is far better at higher-res than both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Hardware details about Adreno 740
2
Replies
27
Views
8K
tuna
T
D
RTX Video HDR modded to work in games, RTX Game HDR?
Replies
7
Views
1K
DegustatoR
D
Cyan
ASUS ROG Ally, twice the power of the Steam Deck. 120Hz, 500 nits.
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
16K
arandomguy
A
N
Thief: The Black Parade - Full sized unofficial Thief Gold Expansion
Replies
3
Views
872
nbohr1more
N
I
The first Evil Within still has remarkably sophisticated lighting
Replies
2
Views
575
Phantom88
P
Back
Top